﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><Search><pages Count="105"><page Index="1"><![CDATA[New Case Law for  
Document Preservation 

Practic al Implication s of th e Rambus Decisions 

June 21 , 2011 

Call from Anywhere for a One-Ho ur Expert Analysis by Phone on 

L A W  S E M I N A R S  I N T E R N A T I O N A L 

Copyrig h t 2 011  by La w  Seminars  Interna tio na l 

(888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="2"><![CDATA[New Case L aw for Document Preservation 

Pract ical Impl ications of  the Rambu s Deci sions 

Call from Any where for  a One-Hour Ex pert  A nalysi s by Ph one on 

Table of Contents 

Topic Speaker # 

Ne w C ase L aw for Docum ent P reser vati on 
Jonathan Sablo ne 1 

Robin E. Stewart 2 

Daniel Christ mas 3 

Page  1  of  1 

June 21, 2011, in (888) 6 74-0 222]]></page><page Index="3"><![CDATA[New Case Law for Document Preservati on 

June 21 , 2011 

Facul ty 

christmadp@corning.com 
T: (607)  974-7715 F: 
Email: 

Mr. Da niel C hristmas 
Corning I ncor porated 
1 Rive rfront Pla za 
Corning, NY 14831  

jsablone@ nixonpeabody.com 
T: (617) 345-1342 F: 
Email: 

Mr. Jonat han Sabl one 
Nixon Pea body L LP 
100 Sum mer St Ste 2600 
Boston, MA 02110  

rstewart@lathropgage.com 
T: (816)  460-5529 F: 
Email: 

Ms. Robin E . Stew art 
Lathrop & Gage LLP 
2345 Grand Blvd. 
Kansas City, MO 64108  

(888) 67 4-0222]]></page><page Index="4"><![CDATA[L A W  S E M I N A R S  I N T  E R N A T  I O N A L 

New Case  Law for Do cume nt Preservation 
Practical Im plications  of the Rambus Decisions 
June 21 , 2011 

Call from Anywhere  for a One-Hour  Expert Anal ysis by Phone on 

New Case  Law for Do cume nt Preservation 

Jonathan Sab lone, Esq. 
Nixon Peabody LLP 
Boston, M A 

Robin E. Stewa rt, Esq. 
Lathr op & Gage LLP 
Kans as City, MO 

Daniel Christm as, Esq 
Corning I ncor porated 
Corning, NY 

(888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="5"><![CDATA[Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Orders Sanctions for the  
Spoliation of Documents Before Pending Litigation 

By:   Jonathan Sablone, Robin E. Stewart, and Daniel P. Christmas 
In companion decisions of Micron v. Rambus and Hynix v. Rambus, the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit clarified a party’s duty to preserve documents and other evidence when
litigation is “pending or reasonably foreseeable.” The two cases involved infringement suits
between Rambus, a memory chip inventor, and manufacturers who used a competitor’s chip
technology. Beginning in the early to mid 1990’s, Rambus contemplated pursuing litigation
against infringers as part of its business plan. Around 1998, key executives at Rambus again
discussed with outside counsel and its board of directors a potential plan to pursue litigation
against infringers beginning in 2000, however nothing concrete was decided. As part of these
discussions, a document retention policy was also discussed and ultimately adopted. Per the
document retention policy its employees discarded potentially discoverable electronic and hard
copy documents and erased backup tapes. Some of this destruction took place on what the
company called “shred days” where hundreds of boxes of documents were shredded. Rambus
ultimately decided to file litigation the following year and, in June 1999, the first patent suit
ensued. Following this suit, Rambus attempted to reach licensing agreements with several other
manufacturers of a competing technology, but one in which Rambus believed its patent covered.
On August 28, 2000, Micron filed a declaratory judgment action against Rambus in the District
of Delaware.  The following day, Hynix filed a similar declaratory judgment suit against Rambus 
in the Northern District of California. Both suits asserted invalidity, non-infringement, and
unenforceability arguments. 

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222 

Jonathan Sablone of Nixon Peabody LLP 
Robin E. Stewart of Lathrop & Gage LLP 
Daniel Christmas of Corning Incorporated 

Speaker 1: 1 
Speaker 2: 1 
Speaker 3: 1]]></page><page Index="6"><![CDATA[2

Both of the lower federal district courts addressed the spoliation issue, but disagreed as to
whether spoliation had occurred in violation of the duty to preserve. The Hynix court held that
Rambus’s adoption of its document-retention policy in mid-1998 was a permissible business
decision, and that the destruction of documents pursuant to that policy did not constitute
spoliation as Rambus had not yet actively contemplated litigation or believed litigation against
any particular manufacturer to be necessary or wise. The Micron court disagreed and ordered
judgment in Micron’s favor as a spoliation sanction.
In deciding whether Rambus had spoliated evidence, the Court of Appeals examined
whether the litigation was “reasonably foreseeable.” Reasonably foreseeable litigation creates a
duty to preserve evidence and failure to do so is sanctionable conduct. However, the court called
this standard “a flexible fact-specific standard that allows a district court to exercise the
discretion necessary to confront the myriad factual situations inherent in the spoliation inquiry.”
The court also noted that the standard is objective in that the court must consider “not whether
the party in fact reasonably foresaw litigation, but whether a reasonable party in the same factual
circumstances would have reasonably foreseen litigation.”
Likewise, the court recognized that “a party may engage in a “good housekeeping”
practice and destroy documents and data in order to simply limit the volume of a party’s files and 
retain only that which is of continuing value.” In fact, the court stated, “where a party has a
long-standing policy of destruction of documents on a regular schedule, with that policy
motivated by general business needs, which may include a general concern for the possibility of
litigation, destruction that occurs in line with the policy is relatively unlikely to be seen as
spoliation.” However, the court ultimately held that rather than adhering to a routine document
destruction policy prior to litigation, Rambus embarked on a “battle ready” strategy when it 

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222 

Jonathan Sablone of Nixon Peabody LLP 
Robin E. Stewart of Lathrop & Gage LLP 
Daniel Christmas of Corning Incorporated 

Speaker 1: 2 
Speaker 2: 2 
Speaker 3: 2]]></page><page Index="7"><![CDATA[3

destroyed data and documents, and that it was done “to further Rambus’ litigation strategy by
frustrating the fact-finding efforts of parties adverse to Rambus.”
While the court stated that “the duty to preserve is not triggered from the mere existence
of a potential claim or the distant possibility of litigation,” the court rejected Rambus’ contention
that litigation must be “imminent, probable, or without significant contingencies” to be
“reasonably foreseeable.” Instead the court found that litigation should have been reasonably
foreseen much earlier than alleged by Rambus for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons
included an articulated litigation time frame and motive for the implementation of a litigation
strategy by Rambus’ Vice President of IP, and the adoption of a document retention policy prior
to filing of litigation as a way of getting prepared for the litigation. In fact, employees were
asked to preserve those documents that might be helpful to Rambus in litigation. The court
stated, “[w]hile it may not be enough to have a target in sight that the patentee [Rambus] believes
may infringe, the knowledge of likely infringing activity by particular parties makes litigation
more objectively likely to occur because the patentee is then more likely to bring suit.” Thus, in
a harsh rebuke of Rambus’ actions and legal arguments, the appellate court specifically held that
it would not “sully the flexible reasonably foreseeable standard with the restrictive gloss
proposed by Rambus.”
After finding that Rambus spoliated evidence, the court turned to the appropriate sanction
for its conduct. The court considered whether the ruling that the patents were unenforceable was
appropriate under the circumstances. In articulating an apparent new standard regarding a
dismissal sanction, the court held “that such sanctions should not be imposed unless there is
clear and convincing evidence of both bad-faith spoliation and prejudice to the opposing party.” 

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222 

Jonathan Sablone of Nixon Peabody LLP 
Robin E. Stewart of Lathrop & Gage LLP 
Daniel Christmas of Corning Incorporated 

Speaker 1: 3 
Speaker 2: 3 
Speaker 3: 3]]></page><page Index="8"><![CDATA[4

To make a determination of bad faith, the district court must find that the spoliating party
“intended to impair the ability of the potential defendant to defend itself.” Upon a finding of bad
faith, prejudice is measured by whether the spoliation “materially affects the substantial rights of
the adverse party.” In a further departure from earlier district court decisions, the court
continued that, even if there is both “bad-faith spoliation and prejudice,” dismissal may not be
warranted. Assuming there is bad faith and prejudice, the court must further consider “whether
there is a lesser sanction” that will deter future spoliation, protect the opposing party’s interests,
and remedy the prejudice. The Micron case was remanded to the district court to consider bad
faith and prejudice and whether dismissal remains warranted given the circuit court’s instruction
on appeal.
The Micron and Hynix cases are the latest in a line of similar cases that offer instruction
on how courts will handle the spoliation of evidence. In the e-discovery age in which we now
live, spoliation increasingly gets the attention of litigants and the court. For companies
frequently involved in litigation (or its possibility), these decisions can be seen as a relief from
the fear of dismissal for the inadvertent spoliation of evidence. However, these decisions should
also serve as a reminder that even just the contemplation of litigation accompanied with taking
steps in the direction of litigation, even without knowing who the opposing party might be, can
be enough to trigger a duty to preserve. Careful management of litigation, litigation holds, and
document retention policies can be an important factor in avoiding a finding of bad faith.  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222 

Jonathan Sablone of Nixon Peabody LLP 
Robin E. Stewart of Lathrop & Gage LLP 
Daniel Christmas of Corning Incorporated 

Speaker 1: 4 
Speaker 2: 4 
Speaker 3: 4]]></page><page Index="9"><![CDATA[[CLIENT] INTERNAL MEMORANDUM 
Do Not Copy or Distribute and 
Do Not Discuss Outside [CLIENT] 
Highly Confidential 

This memo contains important legal information regarding a [CLIENT NAME] 
legal matter. Please read it and respond immediately.
FROM: [ attorney] 
DATE: [ date] 
SUBJECT: Legal Hold Notice – Initial – [matter title] 
________________________________________________________________________
This Legal Hold Notice contains important legal information regarding [CLIENT]’s 
[insert matter]
Please read the entire Legal Hold Notice. 
This is to advise you that [NAME OF PARTY] has commenced an 
Action/Lawsuit/Investigation] against [NAME OF PARTY].  The 
[Action/Lawsuit/Investigation] is now pending before [COURT/GOVERNMENT OR 
REGULATORY BODY].  [NAME OF PARTY] alleges that [GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS].
Documents, records, data (including electronically stored information) and other 
tangible things described below must be preserved until this Legal Hold Notice is 
lifted.  This Legal Hold Notice relates to information that may be stored in personal  
offices, shared file cabinets, and off-site locations.  It also covers electronic information 
in all locations where such information may reside, such a laptops, home computers,
personal digital assistants, server files, removable media, etc.  If you have any questions 
or problems following these instructions, please contact [NAME OF ATTORNEY OR  
PARALEGAL]. 
NOTHING COVERED BY THIS LEGAL HOLD NOTICE MAY BE DESTROYED
UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.  Destruction of any documents or information that is 
subject to this Legal Hold Notice is strictly prohibited. 

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="10"><![CDATA[The information that must be preserved is: [Insert, in lay person language, the best  
current understanding of the subjects covered.]  

[The specific circumstances of a matter may require additional instructions.  Consider  
whether: 
- The complaint mentions particular types of potentially relevant [RECORDS]. 
- The complaint or dispute specifically identifies information and dates (such as instant 
messages exchanged on a particular date or e-mail messages sent among particular  
individuals or entities).  

This Legal Hold Notice covers documents and other information that exists today or that
you create in the future and includes all types of information, such as e-mail, instant 
messenger messages, calendars, presentations, meeting notes, status reports and 
voicemail messages.  This Hold includes all documents and other materials that fit the 
description in the box above that you maintain at [CLIENT NAME] as well as those that 
are maintained at your home, on shared drives, websites (including internal websites and 
blogs), PDAs, or any other location. 
If you have any question about what must be preserved, you should err in the direction of 
preserving the material. If you are unable to determine whether a document falls within 
the scope of this requirement, you should contact the person listed below for further 
guidance. It is always permissible to simply save the document, and inquire later when 
and if documents are gathered in connection with legal proceedings.
If you leave [CLIENT], get a new computer, or take an extended leave of absence:
Notify [RESPONSIBLE CLIENT ATTORNEY OR PARALEGAL] prior to your
departure.
Do not discuss this legal matter: Do not discuss this legal matter with anybody outside  
of [RESPONSIBLE CLIENT ATTORNEY OR PARALEGAL] [or outside counsel 
[NAME OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL]] including your colleagues and family.  Do not  
include any information about this matter in internal reports or other communications or 
documents.
If you have any questions, please contact:
[RESPONSIBLE CLIENT ATTORNEY OR PARALEGAL]
[E-MAIL ADDRESS] 
[PHONE NUMBER] 
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critically important matter.  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="11"><![CDATA[[DATE]
[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[ADDRESS]
Re: [CAPTION OF LAWSUIT OR INVESTIGATION]
Dear [NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL]: 
By this letter, you and your client are hereby given notice not to destroy, conceal or alter any
paper or electronic files, other data generated by and/or stored on your client’s computer systems
and storage media (e.g., hard disks, floppy disks, backup tapes), or any other electronic data,
such as voicemail. This includes, but is not limited to: email and other electronic communications;
word processing documents; spreadsheets; databases; calendars; telephone logs; contact 
manager information; Internet usage files; offline storage or information stored on removable
media; information contained on laptops or other portable devices; and network access 
information.
Through discovery we expect to obtain from your client a number of documents and other data,
including files stored on your client’s computers and storage media. In particular, we will seek
information related to [DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT MATTER, RELEVANT TIME PERIODS
AND RELEVANT DOCUMENT CUSTODIANS].
Although we [MAY BRING / HAVE BROUGHT] a motion for an order preserving documents and 
other data from destruction or alteration, your client’s obligation to preserve documents and other
data for discovery in this case arises independently from any order on such motion.
Electronic documents and the storage media on which they reside contain relevant, discoverable
information beyond what may be found in printed documents. Therefore, even where a paper
copy exists, we will seek all documents in their electronic form along with meta data or 
information about those documents contained on the media. We will seek paper printouts of only
those documents that contain unique information created after they were printed (e.g., as paper
documents containing handwriting, signatures, marginalia, drawings, annotations, highlighting
and redactions) along with any paper documents for which no corresponding electronic files exist.
The laws and rules prohibiting destruction of evidence apply to electronically-stored information in 
the same manner that they apply to other evidence. Due to its format, electronic information is 
easily deleted, modified or corrupted. Accordingly, your client must take every reasonable step to 
preserve this information until the final resolution of this matter. This may include, but would not
be limited to, an obligation to discontinue all data destruction and backup tape recycling policies.
With regard to electronic data created subsequent to the date of delivery of this letter, relevant
evidence should not be destroyed and your client is to take the appropriate steps required to
avoid destruction of such evidence. 
Please forward a copy of this letter to all persons and entities with custodial responsibility for the 
items referred to in this letter. 

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="12"><![CDATA[FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THIS REQUEST COULD RESULT IN EXTREME PENALTIES
AGAINST YOUR CLIENT AND COULD FORM THE BASIS OF LEGAL CLAIMS FOR 
SPOLIATION.
If this correspondence is in any way unclear, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
[NAME]
[LAW FIRM]  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="13"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="14"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="15"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="16"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="17"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="18"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="19"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="20"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="21"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="22"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="23"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="24"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="25"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="26"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="27"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="28"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="29"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="30"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="31"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="32"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="33"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="34"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="35"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="36"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="37"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="38"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="39"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="40"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="41"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="42"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="43"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="44"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="45"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="46"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="47"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="48"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="49"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="50"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="51"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="52"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="53"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="54"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="55"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="56"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="57"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="58"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="59"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="60"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="61"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="62"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="63"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="64"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="65"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="66"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="67"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="68"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="69"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="70"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="71"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="72"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="73"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="74"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="75"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="76"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="77"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="78"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="79"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="80"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="81"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="82"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="83"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="84"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="85"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="86"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="87"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="88"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="89"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="90"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="91"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="92"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="93"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="94"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="95"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="96"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="97"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="98"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="99"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="100"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="101"><![CDATA[Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="102"><![CDATA[R~ N o t e s ~  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="103"><![CDATA[R~ N o t e s ~  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="104"><![CDATA[R~ N o t e s ~  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page><page Index="105"><![CDATA[R~ N o t e s ~  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Law Seminars International | New Case Law for Document Preservation | 06/21/11 in (888) 674-0222]]></page></pages></Search>